Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 208 posts

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#151

Post by jeroenhd »

detourdog wrote: post #132
jeroenhd wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waterproof phones with replaceable batteries existed, but they used more rubber and other tricks to pull it off. This had the advantage of making it a lot easier to close the phone again and still keep the water resistant properties. Having replaced the battery in my old phone, I sure understand why people don't "choose" to do so. The battery itself is worth maybe 20 bucks but the labour and tools required to replace…

Please name these waterproof phones with replaceable batteries. None of my Motorolas or Treos were waterproof. I believe that harden phones may have existed but were not available to normal consumers. Maybe I’m wrong which is why I want to learn what phones you’re talking about.

The G'zOne made headlines being the first water resistant phone and it had a replaceable battery from the very start. The Fujitsu F-02D was another good example, with a fully-featured touch UI while still boasting something other than the slab-of-glass designs of today.

These phones weren't very popular in the west (Japan in particular had a large waterproof phone market, allegedly because people were taking them with them into the shower), but they have existed for a years, before the first Androids or iPhones became water resistant.

Phones like the Samsung XCover (the Android 2.3 one from 2011) were sold worldwide and featured a hotswappable battery. Over time these became bulkier and frankly uglier as they doubled down on how "rugged" they were, but the technology was clearly there.

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#152

Post by JoshTriplett »

bot403 wrote: post #110
friendzis wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because if there are no material consequences for wrongdoings, they probably would not care. And there are very few kinds of actually material consequences for big companies. One of them being a really hefty fine. In mono/oligo-poly situations there's no really such a thing as "a really hefty fine". Either the cost will be happily trickled to the very public that are being wronged or the fine is effectively unsurvi…

I don't consider meta too big to fail. If they go out of business the world can move on with minor disruption and inconvenience.

> If they go out of business the world can move on with

substantial improvement to quality of life. Goals: build a company such that people don't think the world would be better off if you don't exist.

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#153

Post by ajsnigrutin »

maccard wrote: post #91
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries always have a limited lifetime. "back in the day" we had waterproof phones with user replacable batteries, you could just buy another battery and replace it yourself. I have no idea why we can't do this now.

Were they waterproof? I certainly don’t remember my Nokia 3210 being even splash resistant. > I have no idea why we can’t do this now For better worse I think the answer is quite simple - a combo of ease of manufacturing, a long term trend of slimmer devices that is broadly supported by customer behaviour, and an extra place to suggest a device upgrade instead of a repair. You’re more than able to get pretty much any…

Not old nokias but newer phones were.

Samsung actually made such phones even in 2020, eg the xcover pro: https://www.samsung.com/uk/support/mobile-devices/how-to-rep... , the phone is rated for ip68, so yes, waterproof by phone standards.

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#154

Post by ajsnigrutin »

detourdog wrote: post #132
jeroenhd wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waterproof phones with replaceable batteries existed, but they used more rubber and other tricks to pull it off. This had the advantage of making it a lot easier to close the phone again and still keep the water resistant properties. Having replaced the battery in my old phone, I sure understand why people don't "choose" to do so. The battery itself is worth maybe 20 bucks but the labour and tools required to replace…

Please name these waterproof phones with replaceable batteries. None of my Motorolas or Treos were waterproof. I believe that harden phones may have existed but were not available to normal consumers. Maybe I’m wrong which is why I want to learn what phones you’re talking about.

https://www.samsung.com/uk/support/mobile-devices/how-to-rep...

ip68 rated from 2020!

If you go further back, you have the whole "active" series of samsungs, eg. galaxy s5 active (ip67): https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Samsung+Galaxy+S5+Active+Batter...

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#155

Post by WarmWash »

rfrey wrote: post #144
WarmWash wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might as well ban computers then, no?

Child porn is an unavoidable consequence of having computers? Is that what you meant to say? I doubt it but can't find another reading of your comment.

Right, I'm just as confused about it as the person I was replying to. The connection is so detached it doesn't make sense..

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#156

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

microtonal wrote: post #9
cdmckay wrote: post #3

I suspect it’s something similar to the GDPR where the EU passes a law but has very few resources on how to check if you’re actually compliant.

I think with many of the recent regulations, they could verify and find many of the egregious cases to be violating today. The EU is just extremely worried about US tariffs and retracting support to Ukraine. IMO they should just bite the bullet and do what they need to do. In a world of bullies those that are willing to show their teeth win. But instead we have a lot of politicians without a spine.

I'm extremely confident it isn't US companies that "refer customers to Temu or AliExpress for spare parts". Apple and Google, the only two American smartphone makers AFAIK, both have compliant listings with detailed repair portals.

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#157

Post by gmueckl »

thrwl007748 wrote: post #150
gmueckl wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of my personal data has leaked. Some of it has to be public because of some laws. Fire safety is less onerous and less complex.

Have you ever been the responsible person for a public building, a big concert or anything of that ilk? Suuuuure, fire and work safety are easy peasy, uncomplicated and totally trivial compared to the GDPR. And the laws and regulations involved are so incredibly brief, well-written and stay consistent over a long time... o_O /s

I was talking about the burden on small companies. You are looking at different scales already.

Also, I'd take fire safety over GDPR if I had a choice. That is much easier to get a handle on.

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#158

Post by Telaneo »

gmueckl wrote: post #61
mschuster91 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Real examples of organisations I have come across who have to comply with GDPR include a local community theatre, a parish church etc. They are keep fairly simple information, and not exchanging it with anyone, but they still have to put effort into ensuring compliance. Yeah, and that is precisely where you want something like the GDPR to be as well! Large corporations are one thing, they have compliance department…

Well, wait until you are at the receiving end. It can get nasty pretty quickly. What does each one of your systems store exactly? Do they allow configuration of reasonable data retention policies for PII? What do your systems log? How do you make sure that only the minimum amount of PII (including user IP addresses) is logged and that the covered logs are destroyed at the end of a reasonable retention period? How do…

I don't want people who can't handle this to start businesses.

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#159

Post by mschuster91 »

gmueckl wrote: post #157
thrwl007748 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever been the responsible person for a public building, a big concert or anything of that ilk? Suuuuure, fire and work safety are easy peasy, uncomplicated and totally trivial compared to the GDPR. And the laws and regulations involved are so incredibly brief, well-written and stay consistent over a long time... o_O /s

I was talking about the burden on small companies. You are looking at different scales already. Also, I'd take fire safety over GDPR if I had a choice. That is much easier to get a handle on.

Even with a small pub that you run with your friend, you have to deal and comply with fire safety, toilet, public health and a whole lot of other codes.

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#160

Post by 999900000999 »

MBCook wrote: post #128
chrisjj wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All you really need are easy to replace batteries. That’s the only part that will wear out within a reasonable lifecycle. This is far from true. Power connectors.

Screens too

Screens generally break because you dropped the phone and you can take out have the components that way.

But no matter what your battery is at 80 or 70 percent in 2 years.

Power connectors are much harder to engineer to be replaced. Something has to connect at some point

Post reply on HN